I FIND difficulty in understanding the recent views put forward by the Home Affairs Minister regarding the current heavy sentencing policy as reported in the JEP on 29 December.

He claims that the current sentencing of drug smugglers, aka mules, is too high and indeed he further suggests that the stiff sentences meted out are no deterrent.
Surely if the sentences are reduced this will act as further encouragement for would be smugglers who may see Jersey going soft on drug smuggling.

The minister also claims to be opposed to drug taking but that view must apply to all citizens of the Island not just the minister. He also claims that many of the mules are life’s unfortunates who may take to smuggling to pay off debts.

Notwithstanding that there are approximately two million households living below the poverty line in the UK most are decent upstanding citizens and clearly not all of them resort to drug smuggling to supplement their income support, therefore, I find it difficult to accept the minister’s reasoning that the smugglers are somehow victims of society.

Victims of any addiction, whether hard drugs or merely tobacco, are the users and therefore the true victims. Not the smugglers who gain and make a tidy profit exploiting the victims. Not least those unfortunates of Jersey who are ensnared into the web of drug addiction with all the sinister side effects connected to this nefarious trade.

He readily admits that smugglers recently sentenced had no idea that the Jersey court’s sentencing was tough.

Surely this suggests that if these smugglers had been forewarned they would have been deterred from entering Jersey with their illegal contraband.

And how many have been deterred in the knowledge that Jersey is tough on drug smuggling? We may never know.

Therefore it appears that the current sentencing policy does have the desired effect and goes a long way in protecting our citizens from the evil effects of hard drugs.

Finally, and with respect, may I be permitted to suggest that the minister protect his own citizens by supporting those harsh sentences rather than concerning himself with the morality behind the smuggler’s decision to enter into a trade that is despised worldwide?